Question 1

What could a healthier communications market look like? How can the right balance be achieved between investment, competition and services in a changing technological environment?

Many of the questions in this review focus on aspects of competition and industrial policy, however it is our view that for the economic benefits of the Internet to be maximised, attention must also be devoted to closing the digital divide. Efforts such as Race Online 2012 demonstrate that the UK government realizes the significance of access to the Internet in supporting efforts to erase the digital divide, increase participation and enhance digital media literacy. Yet less than 30 percent of adults in the UK report receiving training in media literacy, even though training could promote participation among those with little to no experience (Ofcom, 2011; Livingstone & Wang, 2011). Our view is that access must be paired with understanding of options and risks to promote a healthier communications market.  Based on our 2011 OxIS survey findings, 73 percent of individuals in the UK use the Internet, leaving more than a quarter of the population off the Internet.  Efforts to increase Internet use among Britons has critical significance for 21st century economic and civic participation, but need adequate resources to promote understanding of the associated opportunities and risks.

For earlier OxIS figures see:

Dutton, W. H., Helsper, H. J., and Gerber, M. M. (2009), The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

Livingstone, S. & Wang, Y. (20110) Media Literacy and the Communications Act. London: LSE.

Ofcom (2011b). UK adults’ media literacy. London: Ofcom.

Question 3

Is regulatory convergence across different platforms desirable and, if so, what are the potential issues to implementation?

This question was discussed at a recent policy forum convened by the Oxford Internet Institute, in which field-leading academics with media, communications and regulatory expertise were asked to consider the proposed Review of the Communications Act. This forum served to reinforce our view that it would be a significant mistake to seek regulatory convergence across platforms if this means imposing a model of broadcast regulation on the Internet. It is often assumed that the Internet is a modern era ‘Wild West’, lawless and unregulated. In fact, the opposite is true – there is already extensive regulation of Internet service provision, content and activities. We would argue that traditional regulatory models for broadcasting, common carriers (such as post or telecommunications) and the press cannot be imposed wholesale on the Internet without serious risks to its vitality and its contribution to the UK economy as well as potential chilling effects of speech. Further analysis of this point can be found in: Dutton, W. H. (2010b), ‘Aiming at Copyright Infringers and Hitting the Digital Economy’, Prometheus, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 385-388, December 2010. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1778422

Question 13

Where has self- and co-regulation worked successfully and what can be learnt from specific approaches? Where specific approaches haven’t worked, how can the framework of content regulation be made sufficiently coherent and not create barriers to growth, but at the same time protect citizens and enable consumer confidence?

Many different regulatory models have been applied to various aspects of the Internet. Mobile operators in the UK voluntarily adopted industry codes of conduct to limit Internet access to adult content to minors, and to limit the use of location-aware services. Similarly the UK-licensed Internet gambling industry has proved that age verification (at least for the 18 threshold) is possible, and further has been widely recognised to have implemented this so successfully that even the child protection lobby have registered their satisfaction with this system. The UK model for control of illegal content, such as child pornography and hate speech, could undoubtedly benefit from more transparency and judicial oversight, but has broadly proved an effective way to limit the distribution of such material. Such measures are almost all co-regulatory – individual businesses and industry bodies signing up to common codes of conduct or unofficial norms, with the backing (or threat) of legislation.

We do not believe that the Internet requires further heavy-handed regulation, and would propose two principles as a suitable basis for advance:

·       A presumption in favour of ‘democratised regulation’, namely pushing more control to the users and producers of communication and information services – the public. This is not simply another term for self-regulation, as it requires regulatory support at many levels (see below). A good example of democratised regulation would be the currently evolving system for content regulation whereby only extremely limited forms of illegal content (such as child pornography) might be blocked by mandate or on a centralized basis, with users having access to PC-based tools, a ‘home hub,’ or an ISP filtering system that enables them to choose how much content (if any) they want filtered. In this sense, parents, educators and users generally, could be given more control over their own communications infrastructure in a way that is low cost for government and industry.

·       A presumption in favour of regulation only where it is needed to ensure the preservation of a fair, accessible and open Internet, or to protect the most fundamental rights such as freedom of speech or protection from abuse.

I would also like to draw your attention to related post by Roger Darlington at http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/commswatch/?p=2900 Roger has been posting links to other submissions here: http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/commswatch/

Roger Darlington’s Website: http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/convergence.html

David Grahams’ Blog: http://www.attentional.com/david-grahams-blog/2011/05/a-new-communications-bill-is-coming/

A Meeting to be held as part of an ESRC Seminar Series entitled ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights‘

Location: Oxford Internet Institute (OII) Seminar Room, 1 St Giles’, Oxford

Time: 10.00-16.00 on 24 June 2011

An invited group of academics and practitioners will meet at the OII on 24 June 2011 to identify the key policy issues that should be considered in the UK’s new communications bill. Press coverage of the Oxford Media Convention, various interviews over the following months, and an open letter by the Minister, indicate that the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) plans to issue a green paper in the near-future – possibly by the end of the summer or early autumn 2011. Therefore is critical that debate over the key objectives and issues of the new communications bill begins early, before the initial green paper is published. The meeting will be one in an ESRC Seminar Series, entitled ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights’: http://idl.newport.ac.uk/digitalpolicy/ for which I am a co-principal. My colleagues and I are in the early life of this series, but one of our clear aims is to help shape and inform debate about digital policy. It is difficult to think of a more significant focus of a discussion of digital policy in Britain than the forthcoming communications bill. That said, we would define ‘digital policy’ broadly, in the spirit of increasing convergence across the ecology of media and related information and communication technologies, such as the Internet and mobile communication, that are shaping the quality and diversity of communication in the UK and worldwide.

If you would like to join this discussion, please comment on this blog or send a note to <events@oii.ox.ac.uk> at your earliest convenience. We are trying to limit numbers but should be able to bring in individuals that can add to the mix of expertise we wish to assemble on the day. Whether or not you can attend this session, you are invited to send a one-page position paper before the 17th of June, which we will use to identify the key issues. I will edit and collate these for participants on the day, and use them to shape the agendafor the seminar. A key outcome of this meeting is the identification of key issues, but we also hope this meeting will suggest follow-ups to this discussion, which can be organised by the ESRC Seminar Series, or by others, as we seek to broaden and deepen discussion of the communications bill.

A short summary of the seminar will be posted in due course, but do let me know if you wish to attend, and please post or send your thoughts on critical issues. Also consult the event page on the OII Web site for further details at: http://oii.ox.ac.uk/events/?id=445

The day features speakers including David Warrender (Director Digital Wales, Welsh Assembly Government), Ian Hargreaves (Cardiff University), William Dutton (Oxford Internet Institute), Lorna Hughes (National Library of Wales), Rhodri Williams (Ofcom), Hamish Fyfe (University of Glamorgan), Panayiota Tatsou (Swansea University), Sangeet Bhullar (Wise Kids), Iain Tweedale (BBC) and the Artist Keynote will be John Goto (University of Derby).

The series led by Gillian Youngs (University of Wales, Newport), Tracy Simmons (University of Leicester), William Dutton (Oxford Internet Institute), Katharine Sarikakis (University of Vienna) will run over two years.

Digital policy is currently high on political, communications and commercial agendas. Controversial areas such as copyright infringement, the future and functions of public service content, and the role of Ofcom are core issues.  In the longer term the potential for economic transformations and growth through the digital economy, including the development of new skills, technological and industrial innovation and creativity, are at stake.

This seminar series aims to bring together a distinctive mix of academic researchers at all levels, including research students, with policymakers and practitioners to focus on three key areas: connectivity, creativity and rights.

The series aims to explore questions such as: What kind of digital future is envisaged in Britain? Who continues to be left out or at risk in this digital future? What can be done to overcome major technical, knowledge and skills barriers to this? What new kinds of creativity and innovation are being unleashed by digital change and how can these be expanded? How is the public service ethos being tested and enhanced in the digital environment?  The series will consider connectivity from social and skills-based as well as infrastructural and technical perspectives.

We are currently filling the last few places for the April 1 seminar. If anyone is interested in presenting their research or participating in the series or co-hosting an event as part of it please contact Gillian Youngs (gillian.youngs@newport.ac.uk).

Networking Public Expertise

Abstract

The potential of crowd sourcing has captured the imagination of many managers and professionals across all sectors of society, but left many others quite skeptical. This is not only because conceptions of the wisdom of crowds appear counter-intuitive, but also, if taken literally, these concepts can be misleading and therefore dysfunctional for governments seeking to adopt innovations in distributed collaboration. This paper challenges conventional notions of the wisdom of crowds, arguing that distributed intelligence must be well structured by technical platforms and management strategies. After clarifying these conceptual issues, the paper explains how collaborative networking can be used to harness the distributed expertise of citizens, as distinguished from citizen consultation, which seeks to engage citizens – each on an equal footing. Networking the public as advisors aims to involve experts on particular public issues and problems distributed anywhere in the world. The paper then describes the lessons learned from previous efforts to citizen source advice, and why governments should again pursue this strategy as a means to inform policy and decision-making. This is followed by a set of nine strategies for fostering the bottom-up development of governmental initiatives aimed at harnessing distributed public expertise.

If there is any difficulty obtaining this paper, a copy is available on SSRN at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1767870

Rationale

Digital policy is high on political, communications and commercial agendas currently with the Digital Economy Bill (BIS 2009-10) currently going through Parliament following on from the Digital Britain Final Report in June 2009 (BIS 2009).  While the digital revolution is already well underway in the UK in terms of business developments and changes in daily life, these transitions mark a major policy and legislative push towards Britain’s digital future. Controversial areas such as copyright infringement, the future and functions of public service content, and the role of Ofcom are core to these changes.  In broader terms the potential for economic transformations and growth through the digital economy, new skills, innovation and creativity, are key concerns.

The three core areas of focus of the seminar series offer an original synthesis bringing together consideration of connectivity, creativity and rights to encourage links between technical, political and economic issues. The series will consider connectivity from social and skills-based as well as infrastructural and technical perspectives. Creativity will be examined in a wide sense including creative and media industries, transitions in public service and other forms of content, new knowledge and networking and political and commercial innovations. Rights points not only to the importance of digital inclusivity but broader concerns of digital empowerment through access not only to digital technologies but to the knowledge, skills and motivations that are required to use in imaginative ways and to their full potential. The benefits to individuals and communities as well as to the economy at large are at stake here. Across the seminar series different aspects of the digital knowledge economy, knowledge work and skills and rights issues will be addressed including from critical perspectives.

An innovative approach of the series will be to examine these areas through multi-stakeholder engagement to identify the practical implications and challenges as well as critical debates about winners and losers in the digital game. It will bring policymakers and politicians at different levels together with academics, regulators, communications, media and creative industry representatives as well as members of NGOs, social and digital entrepreneurs and innovators.

The organizers of the series recognize that at this moment of profound digital change an inclusive debate of the kind that can only be stimulated by bringing actors with contrasting interests together is crucial. Not least to identify major tensions and concerns as well as opportunities, but also any areas requiring a particular policy focus, including in relation to complex issues of access and digital rights at collective and individual levels. What kind of digital future is envisaged in Britain? Who continues to be left out or at risk of being left out of this digital future? What can be done to overcome major technical, knowledge and skills barriers to this? How much control needs to be exerted to achieve a safe online environment including for the most vulnerable? What new kinds of creativity and innovation are being unleashed by digital change and how can these be expanded? How is the public service ethos being tested and enhanced in the digital environment? These are the kinds of questions that are central to this series.

Seminar Format

There will be at least five seminars, with additional seminars possible through support from other sources. The first will be held over two days to launch the series and explore the linking themes in some depth, and then four one-day seminars to focus in detail on separate areas. The aim will be to have some core participants who will attend a number of the seminars and then participants related to each theme for the individual seminars. All seminars will have a mix of stakeholders, ranging across policy, business and civil society, in addition to academics to generate theory/practice connections in fresh and productive ways. The aim will be to involve between 30 and 40 people in each seminar including core group participants (regular attendees) and guest speakers and participants.

Dr Sarikakis

 

 

Tracy Simmons

Gillian Youngs

The series is international. First it aims to examine digital Britain in its global context. Secondly, it aims to do that in part through the direct participation in the series of leading scholars from North America, Canada, Europe and East Asia. Finally, it aims to harness digital media in its own methodology in engagement and outreach terms, such as by using the Internet to extend cost effectively the number of international speakers who can be invovled in the series, and by using the web to enable worldwide access to the series. By experimenting with popular social media such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, the series also aims to contribute to new models of academic practice.

The international contributions to the series are vital when digital communication and problems and challenges affecting it have national dimensions and characteristics but also go well beyond them in creating an era of everyday global communication for leisure as much as work, consumption as much as production. The international aspects of the series will stimulate interesting comparative questions for research, contrasting areas of good practice, varied perspectives on issues such as risk, and different sets of policy priorities and objectives. The international character of the series will also significantly enhance its outputs, both in terms of the text and audiovisual material to be mounted online, but also the academic publications from the series. It is also anticipated  that new international networks will develop out of the series which will give academics at all levels of experience and others involved access to knowledge outside of the UK context. The in-depth quality of the seminars will offer plenty of opportunity for new research collaborations to be generated.

The ESRC Research Seminar Series ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights’ (RES-451-26-0849) runs from 2011 to 2013 led by Prof. Gillian Youngs, University of Wales, Newport, with Dr Tracy Simmons, University of Leicester, Prof. Bill Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute, and Prof. Katharine Sarikakis, University of Vienna.

The event is free to attend (and lunch will be provided), but the number of seats is limited – so register soon. Details on the event, registration, agenda, and sponsorship are found at <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/10/london.shtml>

Do let me know what you think of the conference, should you be able to attend.

UNESCO Workshop 81 “Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression:

The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet”

Room 6,  Lithuanian Exhibition Centre LITEXPO, Vilnius

11:30-13:30, 14 September, 2010

Organizer: UNESCO

This workshop is a follow-up of the well-attended discussion on Internet Censorship and Filtering by the participants of IGF 2009 in Sharm el Sheik. UNESCO would also take the occasion to release an in-depth analysis and report entitled “Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet”(Executive Summary attached), which builds upon previous discussions and provides a panorama of observations and useful exploration on the subject, conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute.

Given the increasing debate on the issue of free flow of information at global level since last year, the Vilnius workshop seeks to bring global policy makers, industry leaders, civil society, legal experts and other stakeholders together to dialogue and exchange views on feasible approaches and policy. What recommendations are in order to shape the changing legal and regulatory ecology in ways that are conducive to preserving freedom of expression, the free flow of information and knowledge, and the integrity of cyberspace as a public good, without being increasingly fragmented?  The sub-themes include:

• Internet Filtering and Censorship
• Right to Access to Information and Knowledge
• Privacy and Data Protection
• Child Protection
• Network Neutrality

Agenda

Note 1: The workshop welcomes remote participation. Pls contact remote moderator Ms Xianhong Hu (x.hu@unesco.org), Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO.

Note 2: Ps find the Executive Summary of the report enclosed below:

Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression:

The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet

by William H. Dutton, Anna Dopatka, Michael Hills, Ginette Law, and Victoria Nash, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford

Executive Summary

Over the first decade of the 21^st Century, the Internet and its convergence with mobile communications has enabled greater access to information and communication resources. In 2010, nearly 2 billion people worldwide – over one-quarter of the world’s population – use the Internet. However, during the same period, defenders of digital rights have raised growing concerns over how legal and regulatory trends might be constraining online freedom of expression. Anecdotal accounts of the arrests of bloggers, the filtering of content, and the disconnection of users have sparked these concerns. However, they are reinforced by more systematic studies that provide empirical evidence of encroachments on freedom of expression, such as through the increased use of content filtering.

This report provides a new perspective on the social and political dynamics behind these threats to expression. It develops a conceptual framework on the ‘ecology of freedom of expression’ for discussing the broad context of policy and practice that should be taken into consideration in discussions of this issue. This framework structures an original synthesis of empirical research and case studies of selected technical, legal and regulatory trends. These include developments in six inter-related arenas that focus on:

1. technical initiatives, related to connection and disconnection, such as content filtering;
2. digital rights, including those tied directly to freedom of expression and  censorship, but also indirectly, through freedom of information, and privacy and data protection;
3. industrial policy and regulation, including copyright and intellectual property, industrial strategies, and ICTs for development;
4. users, such as focused on fraud, child protection, decency, libel and control of hate speech;
5. network policy and practices, including standards, such as around identity, and regulation of Internet Service Providers; and
6. security, ranging from controlling spam and viruses to protecting national security.

By placing developments in these arenas into a broad ecology of choices, it is more apparent how freedom can be eroded unintentionally as various actors strategically pursue a more diverse array of objectives. The findings reinforce the significance of concerns over freedom of expression and connection, while acknowledging countervailing trends and the open future of technology, policy and practice. Freedom of expression is not an inevitable outcome of technological innovation. It can be diminished or reinforced by the design of technologies, policies and practices – sometimes far removed from freedom of expression. This synthesis points out the need to focus systematic research on this wider ecology shaping the future of expression in the digital age.

What are these initiatives? Essentially, they are legal requirements to monitor Internet users in order to identify those who are illegally sharing music or other copyright protected content over the Internet. Those who are discovered will be warned and disconnected if they continue to infringe copyright.

The major argument for these initiatives is that they will stop illegal activity – stealing copyrighted material. Support for the idea is based on the simplistic view that unless you are in support of theft, you must support these efforts to disconnect those who infringe copyright laws. I imagine that it is this claim that brings politicians in line on such initiatives. However, this anti-theft claim is misguided in several ways.

First, it is not likely to accomplish its objective. Historically, legal and technical efforts to block file sharing have led to alternative approaches. It is most likely that these legal remedies will not accomplish their intended objective. The costs of these initiatives will be hugely out of proportion to its benefits.

Secondly, and more importantly, they will have negative side-effects, that those who support these initiatives either do not understand or do not appreciate. In order to disconnect users who violate copyright restrictions, the government must force agencies – most often the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – to monitor use. In short, government policy will put ISPs in a position where they must monitor their users for the government, just as in more authoritarian regimes that seek to block political content. This is likely to involve deep packet inspection, roughly analogous to the post office opening our letters before they are delivered to our homes. In other words, ISPs will be violating the privacy of individual users at the behest of government, but in the process, jeopardizing the trust that users have in their ISPs.

This will not only undermine trust in the Internet, the Internet industry, but also governments. And knowing that the content of Internet communications are being monitored, this is likely to have a secondary, but no less chilling effect on freedom of expression. In short, the implementation of these three strikes policies will undermine some of the most valued aspects of the Internet as a new democratic medium of expression.

Thirdly, enforcement of this policy will lead to the disconnection of some households and establishments. Almost all government policy in the developed and developing world has sought to support the wider up-take of the Internet as both an economic and social policy. In one stroke, protectionist policy will work against all the considered efforts aimed at fostering the wider diffusion of the Internet and Web.

In my view, there is a need for more informed debate on the merits of these policies, and the development of alternative approaches to supporting content producers. There are a number of legitimate questions that policy-makers have not considered carefully:

-       Only a small percentage of artists in the music industry make substantial money on the sales of their music, such as through CD sales. In many cases, file-sharing supports the rise of new talent within the music industry. So, are three strikes policies only supporting a small fraction of the music industry?

-       Are there new business models that would enable the music industry to be more sustainable in the digital age? If not, why are governments and the industry not focusing their efforts on up-dating their business models, rather than trying to legally enforce an out-dated business model?

-       Why did are these policies being moved through parliaments with minimal debate and analysis?

-       Are there approaches to preventing illegal file sharing that will not violate our citizen rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of connection?

What can be done? Many experts across the Internet community seem fatalistic and exasperated by these three-strikes initiatives and the support they have garnered in France, the UK and Ireland, as a few examples. However, they fail to fully appreciate the degree to which the public is unaware of the nature of these laws and the consequences they will have for their privacy and freedom of expression. Already, there have been political movements that have been spurred by such initiatives, such as around the Pirate Party. For example, the UK Pirate Party notes: “Pirate Party UK is the political party of the digital age. We represent the changes demanded by technology that governments and industries are resisting with all their might. We want copyright and patent laws to be reformed to fit their purpose, and the privacy of the individual and freedom of speech to be upheld and protected.”

Such developments illustrate the degree to which citizen rights in the digital age will be centered on the Internet. If the rise of a Pirate Party seems extreme or too much of a single-issue party, then think about the Green Party and how its focus on environmental issues has helped reshape the agendas of the other parties. But such movements are but one manifestation of public concern among those who understand the Internet and Web.

It is absolutely critical that we do more to educate the public about how the Internet works and therefore how these well intended efforts will undermine their privacy. If this can be done, politicians might face a more informed public reaction to these policies.

Secondly, the public needs to begin to prepare for more surveillance and greater invasions of privacy, such as by adopting systems to encrypt their communication. The saying goes that if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, but everyone will be monitored under this new regime, not simply those illegally downloading at some extreme. If the public has been concerned over social networking sites and search engines, they will be very concerned indeed about these governmental initiatives that will be far more intrusive and universal.

Technological developments are creating an increasingly powerful network of networks that can support more democratic forms of participation – from greater access to new sources of information to the greater ability to network with like-minded individuals in ways that can hold other institutions more accountable. However, policy developments are moving in the exact opposite direction with Internet filtering on the rise, and legal moves in a variety of areas, such as around copyright protection that could have a negative impact on the values that have underpinned the worldwide success of the Internet.

I would encourage you to become more informed about these efforts to curb files sharing, such as through the UK’s Digital Economy Bill, and speak to your local elected officials and friends about how to stop these well intended but misguided initiatives.

For further information on the issues raised by these initiatives, see:

- French passage of a Three Stikes Law

- Passage of the Digital Economy Bill with little debate

- Eircom plans in Ireland, saying they will impose a three strikes graduated policy to their broadband customers

The Guardian’s Activate Summit is in its second year. The Guardian is putting together a powerful gathering of global visionaries for a day of ideas and inspiration, providing insight into how the Internet, web and related information and communication technologies are shaping society – and how social issues are shaping the Internet and its governance. Confirmed speakers already include:

•    Bill Roedy, chairman & chief executive, MTV Networks International
•    Joe Cerrell, European director, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
•    Juliana Rotich, co-founder and director of programmes, Ushahidi
•    David Cavallo, VP and chief learning architect, One Laptop Per Child
•    Gaurav Mishra, CEO, Gauravonomics
•    Anil Hansjee, head of corporate development, EMEA, Google
•    Desiree Miloshevic, board trustee, Internet Society and International Affairs and Policy
Advisor, Afilias, and OII Visiting Industry Associate
•    David Craig, EVP & chief strategy officer, Thomson Reuters

The organizers have an international array of speakers from a range of sectors and disciplines to discuss and debate how the Internet and its associated technologies are changing the way we do business, the way we interact and govern and the way we live. Want to disagree? Join the conference and the debate.

If you book a place before 14 May and save 25%. To register, you can visit the guardian.co.uk/activate

The panel has been active in a variety of issues, such as in focusing attention on actual versus advertised broadband speeds. Anna Bradley will be speaking about the panel, what it does, and the issues it faces. More information about Anna can be found online, along with information about the Panel.

If you would like to attend, please contact the OII events office at events@oii.ox.ac.uk or telephone: +44 (0) 1865 287209

There will be a Digital Participation Web site very soon, but comments on the plan are most welcome. In addition, information about the consortium is posted on the Web.

I am baffled by the decision of Ofcom’s Communication Consumer Panel to support this tax. The panel argues that it is a ‘pragmatic’ approach, but also recognizes that it will put low income households at risk, leading some to have compared it to a ‘poll tax’; hit small businesses harder; and put consumers in the devolved nations in a position of paying twice to fund NGA rollout. They make recommendations to deal with these inequities, but appear overly optimistic that these difficulties will be dealt with — somehow. Shouldn’t they (charged with representing the interests of consumers) withhold their support unless and until these problems are resolved? I had hoped they would.

In my personal opinion, support of this tax on phones to subsidize the Internet will further alienate those who are non-users of the Internet — and rightly so, and therefore work against public policies aimed at getting more people online. I am as supportive of fostering the vitality of the Internet in Britain as anyone — I am a student of Internet Studies, but to impose a redistributive burden on those most dependent on fixed line phones, and not using the Internet in many cases, seems wrong in principle, and likely to undermine the vitality of the Internet, and the larger economy. It is far from a pragmatic response.

*See for example: Walter Baer (1996), ‘Telecommunication Infrastructure Competition: The Costs of Delay’, pp. 353-370 in Dutton, W. H. (ed.), Information and Communication Technologies — Visions and Realities. (Oxford University Press).

Access the paper via: http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/?p=1194/

My own focus is tied to the Advisory Committee for England (ACE), on which I serve. So I would welcome your comments on this committee or Ofcom. I am particularly interested in key issues facing the Southeast region of England, as well as the nation as a whole. Do comment.

If you would like a copy of the 2009 Oxford Internet Survey report, entitled ‘The Internet in Britain’, and find out more about the OxIS research at our OxIS web page on the OII Web site.

An interim report, entitled ‘Digital Britain’, outlines a set of proposals by the UK government that should have major implications across all sectors of information and communication policy and practice in the UK and beyond. The report is available at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx

Let me encourage you to read and comment on the report at a public site for discussion: www.digitalbritainforum.org.uk

]]> http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2009/02/27/comments-on-digital-britain/feed/ 0 http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2009/02/07/appointment-to-chair-ofcoms-advisory-board-for-england/ http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2009/02/07/appointment-to-chair-ofcoms-advisory-board-for-england/#comments Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:31:13 +0000 Bill http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/?p=179 On 5 February, 2009, Ofcom announced my appointment as the new chair of its Advisory Committee for England (ACE). I will also be the member for the South East Region, working with seven other new members and a continuing member, Anne Scorer, who was appointed in 2005. The mission of ACE is to provide advice to Ofcom about the interests and opinions of people living in the Nations and Regions on all communication matters. So, please let me hear from you, through Ofcom or by commenting on my blog.

For more information, let me refer you to the press release from Ofcom, which lists the members of ACE. Oxford University also issued a press release, illustrating the value Oxford places on public service activities. Some coverage of the appointments appeared in Media Week.